TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks for correcting the flaws in my story, Jim. I got the important part right - that a leader who was the pride of the British army (and an accomplished gun designer if I'm remembering correctly) managed to turn a tactical advantage into a rout by himself. I shot myself in the foot by saying "well fortified" when I just should have left the "well" off.

My point was that discounting those who cling to their guns and religion is not always a good strategy.

lkd wrote:I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

If you are a history buff, you might want to read the story of Kings Mountain. It was a battle in the Revolutionary War with the "Back Mountain Men" - a dis-organized group of squirrel hunters who took exception to the Britsh commander telling them that he was going to come and burn their houses down. The BMM,without any real leadership or training, attacked a well fortified British position and beat them with very limited loss of life to the attackers.

I do realize that with today's modern warfare, it would be hard for a small bunch of civilians to take on a combat trained army. Wait, wasn't that what happened in Iraq? My guess is that the use of the US military against US civilians would up the anty above the 2% range among the civilians. That's just a guess.